✦ High Court of India · 11 Dec 2025

Anoop Kumar v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. Lko And Another

Case Details High Court of India · 11 Dec 2025

Court

High Court of India

Decided

11 Dec 2025

Bench

GAUTAM CHOWDHARY

Length

4,100 words

Acts & Sections

Code of Criminal Procedure §482 Code of Criminal Procedure Indian Penal Code §107 Indian Penal Code §294 Indian Penal Code §306 Indian Penal Code §306 and 294

pointer against such superior officer. The allegations in the FIR are completely inadequate and do not satisfy the requirements under Section 306 IPC. In our view, the facts in the present case stand on a footing better than that in Madan Mohan Singh (supra) and there is absolutely no room for invoking provisions of Section 306 IPC. We are of the firm view that the interest of justice demands that the proceedings initiated against the appellant are required to be quashed..."

11. माननीय उ(cid:267)चतम (cid:281)यायालय ने Netai Dutta Vs. State of W.B. म(cid:517) (cid:352)ितपािदत िविध 6 A482 No. 2065 of 2021 -(cid:498)व(cid:293)था यहां (cid:352)ासंिगक है, जो िन(cid:286)नवत हैः- "...5. There is absolutely no averment in the alleged suicide note that the present appellant had caused any harm to him or was in any way responsible for delay in paying salary to deceased Pranab Kumar Nag. It seems that the deceased was very much dissatisfied with the working conditions at the h workplace. But, it may also be noticed that the deceased after his transfer in 1999 had never joined the office at 160, B.L. Saha Road, Kolkata and had absented himself for a period of two years and that the suicide took place on 16-2-2001. It cannot be said that the present appellant had in any way instigated the deceased to commit suicide or he was responsible for the suicide of Pranab Kumar Nag. An offence under Section 306 IPC would stand only if there is an abetment for the commission of the crime. The parameters of "abetment" have been stated in Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 107 says that a person abets the doing of a thing, who instigates any person to do that thing; or engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, or the person should have intentionally aided any act or illegal omission. The Explanation to Section 107 says that any wilful misrepresentation or wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, may also come within the contours of "abetment".

6. In the suicide note, except referring to the name of the appellant at two places, there is no reference of any act or incidence whereby the appellant herein is alleged to have committed any wilful act or omission or intentionally aided or instigated the deceased Pranab Kumar Nag in committing the act of suicide. There is no case that the appellant has played any part or any role in any conspiracy, which ultimately instigated or resulted in the commission of suicide by deceased Pranab Kumar Nag. 7 A482 No. 2065 of 2021

7. Apart from the suicide note, there is no allegation made by the complainant that the appellant herein in any way was harassing his brother, Pranab Kumar Nag. The case registered against the appellant is without any factual foundation. The contents of the alleged suicide note do not in any way make out the offence against the appellant. The prosecution initiated against the appellant would only result in sheer harassment to the appellant without any fruitful result. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge seriously erred in holding that the first information report against the appellant disclosed the elements of a cognizable offence. There was absolutely no ground to proceed against the appellant herein. We find that this is a fit case where the extraordinary power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to be invoked. We quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the appellant and accordingly allow the appeal..."

12. माननीय उ(cid:267)चतम (cid:281)यायालय ने Netai Dutta Vs. State of W.B. म(cid:517) (cid:352)ितपािदत िविध -(cid:498)व(cid:293)था यहां (cid:352)ासंिगक है, जो िन(cid:286)नवत हैः- "...6. The further complaint in that so-called suicide note appears to be that the driver was not given a fixed vehicle though all the drivers were given fixed vehicles to drive. There is also a complaint against one Raghunathan e suggesting that he misled the DGM and had given him a very bad vehicle to drive. By way of example, it was pointed out that the keys of the vehicle were taken in the absence of Incharge, M.K. Sovangya without giving any reasons verbally. Then he was not given any charge of the vehicle and running log-book. Thirdly, he was sent the transfer order by post. The attendance of the office staff was not maintained and he was transferred and the vehicle was f given to a regular labour. There is also a complaint about the salary of 15 days which was deducted by Madan Mohan Singh. A fair inquiry was sought for by the said driver. It was suggested that his retirement date was 25-12- 2012 and salary should be recovered from Madan Mohan Singh as he had harassed him without giving any concrete 8 A482 No. 2065 of 2021 reason.

10. We are convinced that there is absolutely nothing in this suicide note or the FIR which would even distantly be viewed as an offence much less under Section 306 IPC. We could not find anything in the FIR or in the so-called suicide note which could be suggested as abetment to commit suicide. In such matters there must be an allegation that the accused had instigated the deceased to commit suicide or secondly, had engaged with some other person in a conspiracy and lastly, that the accused had in any way aided any act or illegal omission to bring about the suicide.

11. In spite of our best efforts and microscopic examination of the suicide note and the FIR, all that we find is that the suicide note is a rhetoric document in the nature of a departmental complaint. It also suggests some mental imbalance on the part of the deceased which he himself describes as depression. In the so-called suicide note, it cannot be said that the accused ever intended that the driver under him should commit suicide or should end his life and did anything in that behalf. Even if it is accepted that the accused changed the duty of the driver or that the accused asked him not to take the keys of the car and to keep the keys of the car in the office itself, it does not mean that the accused intended or knew that the driver should commit suicide because of this.

12. In order to bring out an offence under Section 306 IPC specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is required. The intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for this particular offence under Section 306 IPC. We are of the clear opinion that there is no question a of there being any material for offence under Section 306 IPC either in the FIR or in the so-called suicide 9 A482 No. 2065 of 2021 note.

13. It is absurd to even think that a superior officer like the appellant would intend to bring about suicide of his driver and, therefore, abet the offence. In fact, there is no nexus between the so-called suicide (if at all it is one for which also there is no material on record) and any of the alleged acts b on the part of the appellant. There is no proximity either. In the prosecution under Section 306 IPC, much more material is required. The courts have to be extremely careful as the main person is not available for cross-examination by the appellant-accused. Unless, therefore, there is specific allegation and material of definite nature (not imaginary or inferential one), it would be hazardous to ask the appellant-accused to face c the trial. A criminal trial is not exactly a pleasant experience. The person like the appellant in the present case who is serving in a responsible post would certainly suffer great prejudice, were he to face prosecution on absurd allegations of irrelevant nature. In the similar circumstances, as reported in Netai Dutta v. State of W.B.¹, this Court had quashed the proceedings initiated against the accused.

14. As regards the suicide note, which is a document of about 15 pages. all that we can say is that it is an anguish expressed by the driver who felt that his boss (the accused) had wronged him. The suicide note and the FIR do not impress us at all. They cannot be depicted as expressing anything intentional on the part of the accused that the deceased might commit suicide. If the prosecutions are allowed to continue on such basis, it will be difficult e for every superior officer even to work.

15. It was tried to be contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant that at this stage, we should not go into the merits of the FIR or the said suicide note. It is trite law now that where there is some material 10 A482 No. 2065 of 2021 alleged in the FIR, then such FIR and the ensuing proceedings should not be quashed under Section 482 CrPC. It is for this reason that we very closely examined the FIR to see whether it amounts to a proper complaint for the offence under Sections 306 and 294(b) IPC.

16. Insofar as Section 294(b) IPC is concerned, we could not find a single word in the FIR or even in the so-called suicide note. Insofar as Section 306 IPC is concerned, even at the cost of repetition, we may say that merely because a person had a grudge against his superior officer and 9 committed suicide on account of that grudge, even honestly feeling that he was wronged, it would still not be a proper allegation for basing the charge under Section 306 IPC. It will still fall short of a proper allegation. It would have to be objectively seen whether the allegations made could reasonably be viewed as proper allegations against the appellant-accused to the effect that he had intended or engineered the suicide of the person concerned by his acts, words, etc. When we put the present FIR on this test, it falls short.

18. For all these reasons, we are of the clear opinion that the High Court erred in not quashing the proceedings. Allowing this appeal, we set aside the order of the High Court and allowing the petition under Section 482 CrPC filed by the appellant-accused, the questioned proceedings are quashed..."

13. यह भी (cid:352)ासंिगक है िक य(cid:495)िप, द(cid:276)ड (cid:352)िकया की धारा 320 म(cid:517) उि(cid:289)लिखत अपराध(cid:523) के अितिर(cid:472) िकसी अ(cid:281)य अपराध के समझौते का (cid:352)ावधान नह(cid:514) है, िफर भी कु छ मामल(cid:523) म(cid:517) पीि(cid:237)ता , भले ही अपराध असंयोजनीय (non-compoundable) हो, आरोिपत के आचरण को (cid:87)मा करने के िलए तैयार हो सकता है। ऐसे मामल(cid:523) म(cid:517) (cid:281)यायालय धारा 482 Cr.P.C. के अंतग(cid:259)त अपनी िनिहत शि(cid:472) का (cid:352)योग कर सकता है, भले ही अपराध धारा 320 Cr.P.C. के अंतग(cid:259)त संयोजनीय न हो।

14. वत(cid:259)मान मामले म(cid:517), अिभलेख के अवलोकन करने पर यह (cid:293)प(cid:504) होता है िक अिभयोजन प(cid:87) 11 A482 No. 2065 of 2021 (cid:497)ारा आवेदक पर मृतक को लाठी-ड(cid:276)ड(cid:523) से मारने-पीटने का आ(cid:87)ेप आरोिपत िकया गया, िकतु इसकी पिरपुि(cid:504) मृतक के शव परी(cid:87)ण (cid:352)प(cid:347) के अवलोकन से नह(cid:514) हो रही है, (cid:262)य(cid:523)िक मृतक के शरीर पर िकसी (cid:352)कार की चोट अथवा कोई भी चोट के िच(cid:281)ह नह(cid:514) पाए गए। इससे पिरलि(cid:87)त हो रहा है िक इस वाद की मूल आ(cid:87)ेप िक आवेदक के (cid:497)ारा मृतक के साथ मारपीट की गयी, िजससे (cid:87)ु(cid:284)ध होकर मृतक (cid:497)ारा उ(cid:472) घटना कािरत की गयी, उ(cid:472) मूल आ(cid:87)ेप ही मृतक के शव परी(cid:87)ण (cid:352)प(cid:347) के अ(cid:244)ुसार पिरपुि(cid:504) नह(cid:514) हो रही है। इससे आवेदक के िव(cid:628)(cid:490) धारा 306 भारतीय द(cid:276)ड संिहता के आव(cid:291)यक घटक इस मामल(cid:517) म(cid:517) पिरलि(cid:87)त नह(cid:514) हो रहे है तथा धारा 306 भारतीय द(cid:276)ड संिहता सहपिठत धारा 107 भारतीय द(cid:276)ड संिहता के आव(cid:291)यक त(cid:277)व पूण(cid:259)तः अनुपि(cid:293)थत ह(cid:520)। आवेदक के मामल(cid:517) म(cid:517) मृतक को आ(cid:277)मह(cid:277)या करने हेतु (cid:352)ेिरत करने का कोई (cid:352)(cid:277)य(cid:87) या अ(cid:352)(cid:277)य(cid:87) संबंध अथवा कोई भी ‘सि(cid:332)य संबंध’ नह(cid:514) पाया गया और न ही मृतक (cid:497)ारा कोई भी सुसाइड नोट छो(cid:237)ा गया है, िजससे याची की संिल(cid:282)तता का संके त िमले। त(cid:279)नुसार, आवेदक के िव(cid:628)(cid:490) धारा 306 भारतीय द(cid:276)ड संिहता के आरोप आकिषत नह(cid:514) होते, (cid:262)य(cid:523)िक (cid:621)(cid:627)(cid:352)ेरण अथवा उकसावे हेतु आव(cid:291)यक त(cid:277)व—इ(cid:267)छा, सहभािगता या उकसाने का (cid:259)(cid:472) त(cid:278)य(cid:523) से यह कृ (cid:277)य—(cid:352)ाथिमकी के अवलोकन से कह(cid:514) पिरलि(cid:87)त नह(cid:514) हो रहे है। उपयु आवेदन प(cid:347) (cid:293)वीकार िकये जाने यो(cid:264)य पिरलि(cid:87)त है।

15. त(cid:279)नुसार, यह आवेदन (cid:293)वीकार िकया जाता है।

16. अतः इस मामल(cid:517) म(cid:517) प(cid:347)ावली पर उपल(cid:284)ध सा(cid:296)य(cid:523) तथा माननीय उ(cid:267)चतम (cid:281)यायालय (cid:497)ारा उ(cid:472) उि(cid:289)लिखत आदेश(cid:523) म(cid:517) (cid:352)ितपािदत िविधक ि(cid:293)थित को देखते (cid:631)ए उपरो(cid:472) मामल(cid:517) की सम(cid:293)त काय(cid:259)वाही अिभखि(cid:276)डत (quashed) की जाती है।

17. (cid:352)(cid:291)नगत (cid:352)करण म(cid:517) यिद कोई अंतिरम आदेश हो तो उसे समा(cid:282)त समझा जाय। December 11, 2025 CP.sahani (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.) CHANDRA PRAKASH SAHANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

15. त(cid:279)नुसार, यह आवेदन (cid:293)वीकार िकया जाता है।

Find similar cases Start drafting free

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments

More cases under Code of Criminal Procedure